From: j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)
Ironically, TCP/IP had variable length addresses put in _twice_, and
they were removed both times!
Sigh, another correction for the record: it was _three_ times!!! Early
versions of IPv4 (IEN-28, confusingly titled Draft Internetwork
On 2/13/2012 7:09 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2012-02-14 13:42, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 2/13/2012 4:38 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
There were very specific reasons why this was not done.
Is there a useful citation that covers this strategic decision?
You may recall that at the time,
Hi Randy and Brian,
I am sure the discussion of the discussion has been had before, but:
IPv4 provides no mechanism whatever for addresses greater than 32 bits.
Therefore, mathematically, there is no possible design for an IP with
bigger addresses that is transparently backwards
Martin Rex wrote:
...
It was the IETFs very own decision to build IPv6 in a fashion that it is
not transparently backwards compatible with IPv4. If the is anyone to
blame for the current situation, than it is the IETF, not the consumers
or the ISPs (except for those folks at ISPs who
On 2/13/2012 4:17 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
People say this from time to time, but it's a complete myth.
well, not completely...
IPv4 provides no mechanism whatever for addresses greater than 32 bits.
Therefore, mathematically, there is no possible design for an IP with
bigger
On 2012-02-14 13:32, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 2/13/2012 4:17 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
People say this from time to time, but it's a complete myth.
well, not completely...
IPv4 provides no mechanism whatever for addresses greater than 32 bits.
Therefore, mathematically, there is no
On 2/13/2012 4:38 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
There were very specific reasons why this was not done.
Is there a useful citation that covers this strategic decision?
Given that that decision was an essential part of what caused a roughly 15 year
delay, it would be helpful to have it
IPv4 provides no mechanism whatever for addresses greater than 32 bits.
Therefore, mathematically, there is no possible design for an IP with
bigger addresses that is transparently backwards compatible. We've known
that since at least 1992.
i guess you forget the discussion of variable
On 2012-02-14 13:42, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 2/13/2012 4:38 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
There were very specific reasons why this was not done.
Is there a useful citation that covers this strategic decision?
You may recall that at the time, we were very concerned about the
pre-CIDR
From: Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
The design error was made in the late 1970s, when Louis Pouzin's advice
that catenet addresses should be variable length, with a format prefix,
was not taken during the design of IPv4.
Ironically, TCP/IP had variable length
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
There were very specific reasons why this was not done. And it doesn't
change the fact that an old-IP-only host cannot talk to a new-IP-only host
without a translator. It is that fact that causes our difficulties today.
The fact is that an old-IP-only host can talk to
11 matches
Mail list logo
